OK guy's Call your lawmakers

[WNYBuckHunter]

Yeah, but I bet he had to practice alot. It would be much easier to just pull the trigger of a crossgun.

There you go again, talking about a weapon that doesnt exist.  :

This bill is regarding crossBOWs, not some imaginary weapon you NYB types came up with. 

[Doc]

Your first sentence is what I said. The second has to do with your tendency to take anything to do with crossbows to the extreme, usually resulting in the suggestion that we scrap archery season and let guns in. The cliff thing wasnt to be taken literally.

Doc, disabled people can already hunt with guns in gun season, but its very very difficult for them to hunt archery season. With this legislation, they will be able to do that with a crossbow. Im sure many disabled or injured hunters would like the opportunity to hunt during archery season with archery equipment rather than being allowed something like a gun just because they are disabled.

I'm not sure just when this forum became populated with mind readers, but I don't think it is extreme to suggest that laws actually do what we say they are intended to do. Specifically, I will reference the point that you are still sidestepping: "I'm simply saying that if we are truly serious about helping the disabled continue to enjoy hunting, then do something meaningful like allowing them to use a weapon that really does assist almost all of them in a truly practical fashion.” That’s not extreme. That is simply attempting to add a law that encompasses as many of those that we are trying to help as possible at a very minor impact to the season. If we’re not serious about doing that, then leave things as they are. As far as your comment about “disabled people can already hunt with guns in gun season” ..... yeah ...... so? ..... next year they also will be able to hunt with crossbows in gun season........ so what? ..... What’s the point? None of that changes the fact that this bill would be meaningless to a significant percentage of the disabled that have unfair challenges and would be forced to use crossbows instead of something much more manageable like a pistol. That’s no different in principle to the way  the laws are written now. You’re still trying to force them to use a weapon that has a good chance of not meeting their needs and to a certain percent will be just as useless as a compound bow. You see, everyone is trying to make the crossbow some kind of miracle weapon ...... It’s not. Certainly if the disability fits, there would be nothing wrong with them using a crossbow. But that is only a half-measure and totally useless to a whole category of disabled. So what’s the problem with also allowing the use of a pistol for the disabled? Alright, a pistol minus the scope if you want to keep it a short-range weapon.

I’m not sure just what it is that you are afraid of. Properly defined and administered, the actual number of disabled that would take advantage of such a law would most likely be a very small number. And like I pointed out in the last response, you would have difficulty telling them from the existing small game hunters and turkey hunters already out there with guns during bow season. Why are we trying to pass laws that are only half-way measures? I don’t understand it unless the intent of this law is something other than helping the disabled. I’m wondering if the crossbow proponents are more concerned with using the disabled to advance their crossbow agenda than actually doing anything truly constructive for the disabled.

[nyantler]

Non of them use a crossbow... some do need things like blow tubes for trigger releases and have compound bows with draw holding mechanisms... I think if they can find a way to do it without a crossbow.. guys with lesser disabilities can sure do the same...

and there is the rub, Joe. They can't...there is NO legal avenue for them.

Yes, you have a point there..I personally have no problem with crossbows during archery for the physically challenged... not necessarily the same as disabled... disabled is too broad a term... the guy who has a bad back and can't work is disabled...and probably recieving a check for it from you and me.. he's not suppose to be hunting anyway!..

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Doc,

Any physically challenged/disabled folks I know really do not want over the top special treatment. They want an opportunity to participate in life like other folks. A friend of mine from high school that I still stay in touch with has a birth defect to his left arm. It is about half the length of his right and has limited mobility. He gun hunts but can not bow hunt. I know him and in no way would he be looking for an added advantage of using a gun during archery season but he loves to hunt so much I guarantee he would bow hunt if the crossbow was legalized for HIM during archery season.

I bet most with true disabilities are like that. They have no desire to be coddled but wish to be allowed to participate in as normal a fashion as possible

[Dave]

NYantler, you are right about that. 95% of the LIRR employees retire with disability pensions. That's a fact!!! wonder how many of them hunt? Hell, they would even qualify to hunt with a Crossbow, but unable to punch a railroad ticked.

Dave

[WNYBuckHunter]

Your first sentence is what I said. The second has to do with your tendency to take anything to do with crossbows to the extreme, usually resulting in the suggestion that we scrap archery season and let guns in. The cliff thing wasnt to be taken literally.

Doc, disabled people can already hunt with guns in gun season, but its very very difficult for them to hunt archery season. With this legislation, they will be able to do that with a crossbow. Im sure many disabled or injured hunters would like the opportunity to hunt during archery season with archery equipment rather than being allowed something like a gun just because they are disabled.

I'm not sure just when this forum became populated with mind readers, but I don't think it is extreme to suggest that laws actually do what we say they are intended to do. Specifically, I will reference the point that you are still sidestepping: "I'm simply saying that if we are truly serious about helping the disabled continue to enjoy hunting, then do something meaningful like allowing them to use a weapon that really does assist almost all of them in a truly practical fashion.” That’s not extreme. That is simply attempting to add a law that encompasses as many of those that we are trying to help as possible at a very minor impact to the season. If we’re not serious about doing that, then leave things as they are. As far as your comment about “disabled people can already hunt with guns in gun season” ..... yeah ...... so? ..... next year they also will be able to hunt with crossbows in gun season........ so what? ..... What’s the point? None of that changes the fact that this bill would be meaningless to a significant percentage of the disabled that have unfair challenges and would be forced to use crossbows instead of something much more manageable like a pistol. That’s no different in principle to the way  the laws are written now. You’re still trying to force them to use a weapon that has a good chance of not meeting their needs and to a certain percent will be just as useless as a compound bow. You see, everyone is trying to make the crossbow some kind of miracle weapon ...... It’s not. Certainly if the disability fits, there would be nothing wrong with them using a crossbow. But that is only a half-measure and totally useless to a whole category of disabled. So what’s the problem with also allowing the use of a pistol for the disabled? Alright, a pistol minus the scope if you want to keep it a short-range weapon.

I’m not sure just what it is that you are afraid of. Properly defined and administered, the actual number of disabled that would take advantage of such a law would most likely be a very small number. And like I pointed out in the last response, you would have difficulty telling them from the existing small game hunters and turkey hunters already out there with guns during bow season. Why are we trying to pass laws that are only half-way measures? I don’t understand it unless the intent of this law is something other than helping the disabled. I’m wondering if the crossbow proponents are more concerned with using the disabled to advance their crossbow agenda than actually doing anything truly constructive for the disabled.

Maybe you will understand the way Culver explained it, because I didnt sidestep anything, you just apparently didnt understand what I was saying.

Looks like sits got the half page diatribe he was looking for though. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It is showing as unavailable. Are his pics restricted to friends only?

How did he harvest it?

ah poop, with a compound bow in his wheel chair rig.

He's a hog buck too!

I would have loved to see the pics. I am curious though ( I have absolutly no experience around quads)....the whole holding...moving to aim thing really has me puzzled. even assisted ...I can remember trying to help my daughter trying to aim the gun while she was little and it was darn near impossible.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

NYantler, you are right about that. 95% of the LIRR employees retire with disability pensions. That's a fact!!! wonder how many of them hunt? Hell, they would even qualify to hunt with a Crossbow, but unable to punch a railroad ticked.

Dave

Carpenter that use to work for me went out on disability because he couldn't bend...back issues.....that even kept him from taking a desk job we offered him.....brought the paperwork to us ....you got it.....riding his RoadKing ???

[Chevy]

If you open the door even a crack the abusers will always knock it right off the hinges. Sorry.

[nyantler]

And the more you loosen the hinges the easier they are to knock off

[Dave]

And the more you loosen the hinges the easier they are to knock off

Maybe you have to change your tactics.

[nyantler]

???  I totally lost you there Dave... I was talking about the more we loosen the laws the easier they become to abuse. I don't see your tactic reference.

[Doc]

Doc,

Any physically challenged/disabled folks I know really do not want over the top special treatment. They want an opportunity to participate in life like other folks. A friend of mine from high school that I still stay in touch with has a birth defect to his left arm. It is about half the length of his right and has limited mobility. He gun hunts but can not bow hunt. I know him and in no way would he be looking for an added advantage of using a gun during archery season but he loves to hunt so much I guarantee he would bow hunt if the crossbow was legalized for HIM during archery season.

I bet most with true disabilities are like that. They have no desire to be coddled but wish to be allowed to participate in as normal a fashion as possible

Well now I am confused. "Added advantages" of a crossbow to compensate for disabilities .... OK. "Added advantages" of a gun to compensate for disabilities .... Not OK. Even though there may be some who cannot use a crossbow, but could participate if they were allowed to use something like a handgun. If they're just a little disabled, they can use a crossbow. If they are a lot disabled, the heck with them. Sorry Charlie, nothing we can do for you. You can't use a crossbow, you're out of luck. Just as they are being basically told they are out of luck if they can't use a bow now, we are just going to do a little shoe-shuffle and make the crossbow the new limit. When it is all done we all pat ourselves on the back and tell each other how wonderful we are while we turn our backs on those that can't participate because they can't master the one armed use of a crossbow, or those that have excruciating back, shoulder, arm or whatever, pain when they try to shoulder a crossbow. I don't know, it all seems a bit arbitrary and half-hearted to me and still winds up exclusionary.

Look, for those that have an issue about the over compensation aspect, and it becomes a point of pride or whatever, there is no one saying that they have to use a pistol. If they can manage to use a crossbow and that's as far as they need to go, fine ..... go for it. But for those that don't have that choice, there are alternatives that could return them to the woods as productive hunters. That is a point that I have already made twice before.

[Dave]

Doc, I think you are beating a dead horse, enough. We get the point.

Dave

[Doc]

Maybe you will understand the way Culver explained it, because I didnt sidestep anything, you just apparently didnt understand what I was saying.

Looks like sits got the half page diatribe he was looking for though. 

Well, rather than repeat it all, just read my reply to Culver. A lot of it is repeated stuff that nobody seems to want to address. I think you will see that I do understand exactly what you are saying. Basically you are saying and have been saying that if the disabled issue doesn't involve a crossbow, the heck with those that can't work within that new limit. I simply don't agree with that half-way measure.

As far as Sits is concerned ..... Lol, what can I say. He is kind of irrelevant to this discussion and non existant in any other topics. The only time he comes out of the woodwork is when there is a crossbow topic.... pretty much a "johnny one-note" element of back-ground noise that I have learned to ignore.  :

[Doc]

Doc, I think you are beating a dead horse, enough. We get the point.

Dave

If you take the time to actually read the replies you will see that some are definitely not getting the point.

[Dave]

Doc, I have read all the reply's  don't let them make you crazy. Because they have a different point of view both sides have valid points.

Dave

[Doc]

Doc, I have read all the reply's  don't let them make you crazy. Because they have a different point of view both sides have valid points.

Dave

I guess what I'm not seeing responded to is the reasoning that says that we care about the disabled, but only just "this much" and only these certain categories of disabilities. I'm still trying to make some sense of that. It's not a point of view discrepancy but rather an inconsistancy of purpose that I just can't seem to understand.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Doc, you seriously must have gotten a case of lack of comprehension again. What you are saying makes no sense. You are saying that this law is not truly helping the disabled because it doesnt let them use a gun during archery season. Thats nonsense. The whole point of this law is to allow disabled people to use a crossbow, which is more easily adapted to many different disabilities than other forms of archery equipment. I dont think anyone wants to see guns in archery season, no matter if the person is disabled or not. If someone cant shoulder a crossbow, how are they going to raise or shoulder a gun? Crossbows can be equipped with different types of cocking devices to make it usable for someone missing an arm, they can be more easily adapted to a wheel chair than any other type of bow, or shot off of a bipod or tripod for those that cant hold them up. Again, the point is to allow disabled people to use another form of archery equipment during archery season.

I see what you are trying to do here Doc, but Im not going to get led down that road. Its just more of your anti-crossbow rhetoric.

[Doc]

See there ya go again ..... trying to be a mind reader    . And it doesn't surprise me that for you it is all about the crossbow and the heck with doing what's right for the disabled. That much is consistant. But I guess I've made my position as clear as I can, and if some are in favor of a "window dressing" style law for some of the disabled, then so be it. Nothing I can do about that. One last point though relative to your crossbow vs. gun comment. I have lifted and held and fired a handgun with one hand, and I'll guarantee that it is a whole lot easier than shooting a crossbow with one hand and I didn't have to shoulder anything.

[G-Man]

I don't understand doc's and others against a crossbow unless they are making their own bow and arrows and points. They have been around for century's the compound bow has not, remember when combounds were illegal? ??? what about the release most bow hunters use(looks and acts like a trigger... they have drawlocs for bows that hold the string back and they don't have problems with those,just turn one on its side and its a crossbow!! What about let off that lets you hold the bow back for a longer time and hold a higher draw weight?? sounds like they need to be  policing their own rather than tryin to stop an effective piece of archery equipment that for all intents and purposes is exactly the same as the bow they are shooting!

[WNYBuckHunter]

See there ya go again ..... trying to be a mind reader    . And it doesn't surprise me that for you it is all about the crossbow and the heck with doing what's right for the disabled. That much is consistant. But I guess I've made my position as clear as I can, and if some are in favor of a "window dressing" style law for some of the disabled, then so be it. Nothing I can do about that. One last point though relative to your crossbow vs. gun comment. I have lifted and held and fired a handgun with one hand, and I'll guarantee that it is a whole lot easier than shooting a crossbow with one hand and I didn't have to shoulder anything.

Thats the biggest load of crap yet.

BTW, I think my exact wording was "how are they going to raise or shoulder a gun?", not just shoulder, as you cherry picked. Ill bet money that firing a crossbow off of a bipod or tripod is a hell of alot easier than firing a handgun accurately with one hand. Again, this law is about archery equipment in archery season, not adding guns to archery season as you seem to be on board with.

[Doc]

Thats the biggest load of crap yet.

BTW, I think my exact wording was "how are they going to raise or shoulder a gun?", not just shoulder, as you cherry picked. Ill bet money that firing a crossbow off of a bipod or tripod is a hell of alot easier than firing a handgun accurately with one hand. Again, this law is about archery equipment in archery season, not adding guns to archery season as you seem to be on board with.

Now see there you go getting all angry again. A load of crap?? . Well like I said before, for some this law is more about advancing crossbows than trying to do anything substantive to help the disabled. So I guess you know where I stand, and I know where you stand on that issue. I don't really have anything to add.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Let me try to be as simple as I can, Doc. The addition of crossbows during archery gives them the opportunity to participate in that season.....any one of them that wishes to use a pistol or long gun can participate in that season...no window dressing...it would work.  I would like to hear from some of the guys on this site that are working with the disabled hunting groups....what is your take?

[Doc]

I don't understand doc's and others against a crossbow unless they are making their own bow and arrows and points. They have been around for century's the compound bow has not, remember when combounds were illegal? ??? what about the release most bow hunters use(looks and acts like a trigger... they have drawlocs for bows that hold the string back and they don't have problems with those,just turn one on its side and its a crossbow!! What about let off that lets you hold the bow back for a longer time and hold a higher draw weight?? sounds like they need to be  policing their own rather than tryin to stop an effective piece of archery equipment that for all intents and purposes is exactly the same as the bow they are shooting!

I am not going to engage in pro crossbow/anti crossbow discussion. We have a jillion pages of that where just about anything that can be said on the subject has been said. It's simple enough to go back and review that whole discussion and perhaps that will answer some of your confusion about one side of the argument or the other.

This is a whole different topic about a bill to help disabled hunters participate in the early bow season (or at least some of them). To me it seems like a pretty half-hearted attempt which I would rather see expanded to a point where it is actually effective and meaningful. That is what I have been discussing here and which most likely has run it's course as far as I'm concerned.